That is not quite what the MSB says. I think owners fall into three broad sets:Mwarmer wrote: ↑Fri Nov 25, 2022 7:49 pm In the aviation world it is completely different. Austro engines has produced junk. We paid for this product 100%. Now that something needs to be replaced (read a new engine) we have to pay for an engine that meets the specified requirements (as prescribed before) again, we can even pay for the installation again.
In other words, Austro or Diamond only make something and we get to pay ALL expenses twice.
Please explain.
1) Engines which must be monitored, and if they exceed the AL threshold, must be replaced.
2) Engines which must be replaced at 900 or 1000hrs.
The Group 4 engines which must be replaced at 1000hrs makes no sense. Why spend all the money on a the major work at 900hrs, just to discard that engine 100hrs later? I suspect those engines will all be replaced at 900hrs.
3) Engines which must be replaced immediately.
In all cases, Diamond/Austro is providing the replacement parts and/or engine core (owner's choice) and a pro-rata warranty for the full normal 1800hr TBR of the engine. That said, pro-rata implies some potential cash flow issues. I don't have this issue so I don't know exactly how that is being handled, perhaps someone who is affected will report on how the cash flow is being addressed.
In any case, your assertion that "we get to pay ALL expenses twice" is flawed.
WRT to a comparison with the auto industry, while auto manufacturers will most often provide a "loaner" vehicle, the aircraft/engine manufacturers draw the line at parts and labor. No loaner, no compensation for loss of use. So in that regard you are quite correct that aircraft manufacturers don't attempt to make their customers "whole". As an owner, there is both a cash flow element with the time AOG (interest, hangar, insurance, etc.), loss of revenue for owner's who's plane are generating revenue, loss of use for those who's aircraft are used in public service (S&R, military / environmental reconnaissance, etc.) and potential loss of pilot currency for private owners necessitating additional owner borne expense to restore currency.
It is entirely fair to say that the aircraft/engine manufacturers do not provide the same level of care to their customers as the auto industry, or many consumer products. And I'm pretty sure no airplane salesman has ever mentioned that to a first time airplane buyer. Caveat Emptor is an understatement.
On the other hand, I suspect that if we were to receive the same level of care that we receive from consumer products, we'd probably be paying even higher prices for a new airplane (and thus used airplane). So perhaps it's "pay me now or pay me later".